In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Not knowing when to say "No" to a retailer demanding cost reductions
is called "corporate greed".

Actually it is called staying in business. Interesting that every body
gets all bent about monopolistic practices, but nothing is said about
monopsonist, where the BUYER has the power. WalMart is the poster child
for this kind.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Not knowing when to say "No" to a retailer demanding cost reductions
is called "corporate greed".

Actually it is called staying in business. Interesting that every body
gets all bent about monopolistic practices, but nothing is said about
monopsonist, where the BUYER has the power. WalMart is the poster child
for this kind.

Uh, monopsony is a circumstance where there is only one buyer. If Bill Gates
decided to buy Cleveland and Warren Buffet decided he wasn't interested,
Gates would be a monopsonist. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Sep 17, 9:32 am, George wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

But he didn't say that. Our current Walmart driven culture is that the
only thing that matters is price. Thats what gets us into melamine
flavored dog food and toys with lead paint. If you keep on squeezing
suppliers and looking in every dark alley for cheap stuff you will find it.


Wrong...what gets us poisoned dog food, poisoned toothpaste and
poisoned toys is that American companies are not doing QA to save a
buck and passing those savings on to the CEO's compensation.

And we had a Republican Congress and President who allowed it to
happen while being compensated for it.

Consumers always choose quality over price when the kids and the dog
are dropping dead.

TMT


I'm starting to think you have a hard-on for corporate management.

If consumers bought quality BEFORE, the dog and kid would never have
been at risk.

But the great unwashed masses choose price - not quality.

So that's what businesses supplied them.

It's the BUYER who sets the selling price. And the quality.
Basic economics...


Look, ok, it's fun to sit at the computer and vent, but what really
do you think you are changing here?

Nothing...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:03:19 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:28 am, Ignoramus26157 ignoramus26...@NOSPAM.
26157.invalid wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:05:58 -0700, Tom Gardner wrote:
Do CEOs make too much? Why is that? Could it be that they are hired to do
a job and that's what the job is worth? Why do you resent high-paying jobs?

Tom, it would be helpful to get acquainted with the issue of CEO
compensation a little more closely, before invoking cheap capitalist
rhetoric.

The problem with "CEO compensation" is that CEOs wield a lot of
corporate power and subvert the board and "compensation committees",
who nominally set CEO salary, stuffing them with cronies, hiring
complicit "compensation consultants", and forcing them to agree to pay
them beyond what they are worth.

I am very skeptical of the possibility that there are more than one or
two people, if that many, who really are worth beyond a few millions
of dollars per year.

If you would like, I can point you to a couple of Warren Buffett's
annual letters to shareholders that explain this issue well.

i

Ig is right.


A quiz:

1) who promotes such cheap rhetoric (that there is free market in
setting CEO compensation)?

ANSWER: CEOs

2) Who selects media outfits when spending corporate advertising dollars?

ANSWER: CEOs

3) Does media like to **** off those who pay them

ANSWER: try guessing

i

On Sep 17, 12:01 pm, "Noozer" wrote:
"I will pay more (for toys) because I know it will ensure safety,"
said Lisa Sallese, a Wilton, Conn., mother of a 7-month-old boy and a
2-year-old girl. "But it stinks. It should have been safe to begin
with."

...and she pays twice as much for a insert well known toy company here toy
instead of a Mattel toy, not knowing that both companies had stuff
manufactured at the same plant in China.

Sounds like a WIN solution for the toy companies. They can double their
prices, citing increased safety costs, while not actually doing anything to
improve safety.

LOL...yeah a manufacturer's dream is still a dream.

The more toys cost....the fewer that will be purchased....and since
the fewer toys that will be purchased will need to deliver better
value. Since the consumer mentality is "I paid this MUCH for this toy
and it BREAKS after a couple of days"....the companies will need to
invest even more.

The 10% mentioned in the article is the number that the companies are
testing the consumer waters with....MBA 101. Toy companies need to
sell toys...consumers do not need to buy toys....guess who will win
this game.

Just sit back and watch....Scrooge is coming to a toy company near
you.

TMT

On Sep 17, 12:04 pm, "Noozer" wrote:
Quality has EVERYTHING to do with what the CEO should be paid.

Quality determines sales...which determines profits...which determines
his compensation.

Quality has NOTHING to do with sales. How do you think places like Walmart
survive and? Why do you think there are so many imports from China?
Consumers want what is CHEAP, not what works.

So consumers WANT poisoned toothpaste, poisoned pet food and poisoned
toys?

You sound like a MBA whose faith is being threatened.

There are so many imports from China because it maximizes profits for
the companies that sell them. So called cheaper prices that aren't are
a side effect.

Note the fear speeches we are hearing from companies that import as
the time nears where the Congress will be putting in place penalties
on imports.

Reminds me of the Mattel CEO groveling about how "they failed us" but
no mention of cuts in HIS compensation for the poisoning of millions
of children.

TMT

TMT

On Sep 17, 12:29 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article .com,

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Quality determines sales...which determines profits...which determines
his compensation.

Tie his compensation to QA and the problems go away..and your children
will not be poisoned.

hasn't worked so far. If anything the attempts to play with CEO
compensation has made things worse. When people are getting paid in
stock options, etc., then making the stock go up becomes paramount and
cooking the books becomes inevitable.

So does jailtime.

Ever notice how they whined about the new requirements they had placed
on them after Enron?

CEOs as a vast majority are hypocrites who have gotten to where they
are by climbing over bodies.

TMT

On Sep 17, 12:32 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article .com,

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Not knowing when to say "No" to a retailer demanding cost reductions
is called "corporate greed".

Actually it is called staying in business. Interesting that every body
gets all bent about monopolistic practices, but nothing is said about
monopsonist, where the BUYER has the power. WalMart is the poster child
for this kind.

I and the business world doesn't buy that...anyone can say
"No"...anyone.

Companies made money before the Walmart business model.

All those companies that don't deal with Walmart still make money...I
wonder how?

Do research on "Rubbermaid" as to how management's greed can destroy a
company.

It is Business 101 that a company should never have only one customer
that is your major customer.

Rubbermaid is a case of management who made too much money and had too
few brains.

TMT

On Sep 17, 1:15 pm, cavelamb himself wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:32 am, George wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

But he didn't say that. Our current Walmart driven culture is that the
only thing that matters is price. Thats what gets us into melamine
flavored dog food and toys with lead paint. If you keep on squeezing
suppliers and looking in every dark alley for cheap stuff you will find it.

Wrong...what gets us poisoned dog food, poisoned toothpaste and
poisoned toys is that American companies are not doing QA to save a
buck and passing those savings on to the CEO's compensation.

And we had a Republican Congress and President who allowed it to
happen while being compensated for it.

Consumers always choose quality over price when the kids and the dog
are dropping dead.

TMT

I'm starting to think you have a hard-on for corporate management.

If consumers bought quality BEFORE, the dog and kid would never have
been at risk.

But the great unwashed masses choose price - not quality.

So that's what businesses supplied them.

It's the BUYER who sets the selling price. And the quality.
Basic economics...

Look, ok, it's fun to sit at the computer and vent, but what really
do you think you are changing here?

Nothing...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...pretty myoptic aren't you?

Change starts with a single person.

The Internet is used by millions..a collective conscious.

These same discussions are being typed and read by millions of parents
who will be making the buying decisions this Christmas. More than one
parent will be bringing a lead testing kit to the store before making
their purchase.

Let's just sit back and watch retail toy sales this Christmas.

What goes around and is coming around for Mattel....right between the
eyes.

Why else would the Mattel CEO be groveling on the news? Exercise? LOL

TMT

On Sep 17, 2:40 pm, Ignoramus26157 ignoramus26...@NOSPAM.
26157.invalid wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:03:19 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:28 am, Ignoramus26157 ignoramus26...@NOSPAM.
26157.invalid wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:05:58 -0700, Tom Gardner wrote:
Do CEOs make too much? Why is that? Could it be that they are hired to do
a job and that's what the job is worth? Why do you resent high-paying jobs?

Tom, it would be helpful to get acquainted with the issue of CEO
compensation a little more closely, before invoking cheap capitalist
rhetoric.

The problem with "CEO compensation" is that CEOs wield a lot of
corporate power and subvert the board and "compensation committees",
who nominally set CEO salary, stuffing them with cronies, hiring
complicit "compensation consultants", and forcing them to agree to pay
them beyond what they are worth.

I am very skeptical of the possibility that there are more than one or
two people, if that many, who really are worth beyond a few millions
of dollars per year.

If you would like, I can point you to a couple of Warren Buffett's
annual letters to shareholders that explain this issue well.

i

Ig is right.

A quiz:

1) who promotes such cheap rhetoric (that there is free market in
setting CEO compensation)?

ANSWER: CEOs

2) Who selects media outfits when spending corporate advertising dollars?

ANSWER: CEOs

3) Does media like to **** off those who pay them

ANSWER: try guessing

i- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ig is smart man.

TMT

On Sep 17, 1:15 pm, cavelamb himself wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:32 am, George wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

But he didn't say that. Our current Walmart driven culture is that the
only thing that matters is price. Thats what gets us into melamine
flavored dog food and toys with lead paint. If you keep on squeezing
suppliers and looking in every dark alley for cheap stuff you will find it.

Wrong...what gets us poisoned dog food, poisoned toothpaste and
poisoned toys is that American companies are not doing QA to save a
buck and passing those savings on to the CEO's compensation.

And we had a Republican Congress and President who allowed it to
happen while being compensated for it.

Consumers always choose quality over price when the kids and the dog
are dropping dead.

TMT

I'm starting to think you have a hard-on for corporate management.

If consumers bought quality BEFORE, the dog and kid would never have
been at risk.

But the great unwashed masses choose price - not quality.

So that's what businesses supplied them.

It's the BUYER who sets the selling price. And the quality.
Basic economics...

Look, ok, it's fun to sit at the computer and vent, but what really
do you think you are changing here?

Nothing...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -




If consumers bought quality BEFORE, the dog and kid would never have
been at risk.


The consumer did buy a product that they thought was sufficient
quality...the dog and kid didn't die.

The product was changed without that information being passed on to
the consumer.

Guess how much credibility the respective industries and retailers
have now with the consumers that decide their profits?

Z*E*R*O

TMT

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:17:33 -0700, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 17, 12:53 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Bob Ward" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:05:58 -0700, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

Sit back and watch the toy companies...they are going to be used as a
lesson for the rest of Corporate America as to what happens when you
cut corners to make the CEO bonus larger.

TMT

Do CEOs make too much? Why is that? Could it be that they are hired
to
do
a job and that's what the job is worth? Why do you resent high-paying
jobs?

So you think that CEOs should be rewarded for driving the company toi
the brink of bankruptcy?

It's not that simple. The CEO doesn't do day-to-day QC but...somebody
down
his chain of command does and that head will roll. The captain of a ship
is
ultimately responsible for everything on the ship but doesn't handle the
operation of the milkshake machine in the lounge, he delegates that...get
it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So if the CEO isn't ultimately responsible for the company's
performance, why is he making the big bucks?

Seems you like to argue the "have the cake and eat it too" approach
Tom.

You wouldn't happen to be an owner of a business, would you?

TMT


You know what I'm trying to say. I'm just not communicating it well. It's
really a tiny percentage of CEOs that make truly big bucks and you don't
hear about most because they do a good job. Why do companies offer huge
compensation for a top-notch CEO? If the job is done right, the right guy
can make the company perform wonders. Great job...if you can get it.


So, in your world, the CEO gets all of the credit for success, but
none of the blame for failure? A-****ing-mazing!

On Sep 18, 12:17 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Sep 17, 12:53 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Bob Ward" wrote in message

. ..

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:05:58 -0700, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

Sit back and watch the toy companies...they are going to be used as a
lesson for the rest of Corporate America as to what happens when you
cut corners to make the CEO bonus larger.

TMT

Do CEOs make too much? Why is that? Could it be that they are hired
to
do
a job and that's what the job is worth? Why do you resent high-paying
jobs?

So you think that CEOs should be rewarded for driving the company toi
the brink of bankruptcy?

It's not that simple. The CEO doesn't do day-to-day QC but...somebody
down
his chain of command does and that head will roll. The captain of a ship
is
ultimately responsible for everything on the ship but doesn't handle the
operation of the milkshake machine in the lounge, he delegates that...get
it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So if the CEO isn't ultimately responsible for the company's
performance, why is he making the big bucks?

Seems you like to argue the "have the cake and eat it too" approach
Tom.

You wouldn't happen to be an owner of a business, would you?

TMT

You know what I'm trying to say. I'm just not communicating it well. It's
really a tiny percentage of CEOs that make truly big bucks and you don't
hear about most because they do a good job. Why do companies offer huge
compensation for a top-notch CEO? If the job is done right, the right guy
can make the company perform wonders. Great job...if you can get it.



That's not actually true, at least as far as long-term results. I'm
reading an interesting study, and compensation isn't the be-all and
end-all of finding a top-notch CEO. Top-notch executive compensation
keeps the right person, it does not necessarily get a company the
right person.


V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:55:07 -0700, RickH
wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:23 pm, Sevenhundred Elves
wrote:
wrote:
Bob Ward wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:23:44 GMT, "Jerry Foster"
wrote:

I don't know the geometry of your chairs, but, in the case of a simple
hammock, the tension on the supports greatly exceeds the weight of
the person in the hammock. How greatly depends on how much the
hammock is allowed to sag.

I question your geometry.

I question your trigonometry.

Especially on a simple hammock, where the design requires TWO points
of support. No way can you DOUBLE the user's weight by any kind of
angle trickery.

What is the tangent of 90 degrees?

Xho

Maybe you should explain what kind of hammock you mean. I think I know
what you're getting at, and what the misunderstanding is.

Below is my idea of a hammock. In this type of hammock the fasteners are
attached to the beam. The only force on the fasteners is what is
necessary to hold up the seat and its occupants. (ASCII art,
non-proportional font required for viewing)

_____.___________________________________._____
|_____|___________________________________|_____| -- Beam
|| 0-- Fastener 0 ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||--Support
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| |-- Chain | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | _________________________________ | ||
|| |/ \| ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | Backrest | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | _________________________________ | ||
|| |´ `| ||
|| | Seat | ||
|| |___________________________________| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
\\// -- Grass \\//

That's a "Porch Swing" seat in the USA, and the beam is often the
roof structure of the porch it's mounted on.

But I believe you were thinking about something like what I've shown
below. In this type of hammock the force on the fasteners easily exceeds
the weight of the seat with occupants, because of the geometry, just
like you say.

The drawing below is impractical unless you have some very strong
support posts, or they have back-guys on them, from compound leverage
you will be concentrating a LOT of force pulling the two posts
together. If you had to do it, the chains would need to have a lot of
slack to ease the tension load - and you are still going to need
either very mature trees for posts or back-guys.

| | | |
|___| Fastener |___|
|___}0 0{___|
| | \ / | |
| | \ / | |
| | \Chain / | |
| | \ / | |
| | \ / | |
| | \ Ring Chain Ring / | |
| | 0-----------------------------------0 | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |--Support
| | |-- Two Chains - One each side -- | | |
| | | to backrest, one each side | | |
| | | to seat to minimize fore-aft | | |
| | | instability | | |
| | | | | |
| | | _________________________________ | | |
| | 0/ \0 | |
| | | | | |
| | | Backrest | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | _________________________________ | | |
| | 0´ `0 | |
| | | Seat | | |
| | |___________________________________| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
\\||// \\|||//

This should neatly reconcile your different opinions, I hope.

S.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh my god, you've got way too much free time on your hands

Me too. And your point is...? ;-)

-- Bruce --

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 17, 12:53 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Bob Ward" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:05:58 -0700, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

Sit back and watch the toy companies...they are going to be used as a
lesson for the rest of Corporate America as to what happens when you
cut corners to make the CEO bonus larger.

TMT

Do CEOs make too much? Why is that? Could it be that they are hired
to
do
a job and that's what the job is worth? Why do you resent high-paying
jobs?

So you think that CEOs should be rewarded for driving the company toi
the brink of bankruptcy?

It's not that simple. The CEO doesn't do day-to-day QC but...somebody
down
his chain of command does and that head will roll. The captain of a ship
is
ultimately responsible for everything on the ship but doesn't handle the
operation of the milkshake machine in the lounge, he delegates that...get
it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So if the CEO isn't ultimately responsible for the company's
performance, why is he making the big bucks?

Seems you like to argue the "have the cake and eat it too" approach
Tom.

You wouldn't happen to be an owner of a business, would you?

TMT


You know what I'm trying to say. I'm just not communicating it well. It's
really a tiny percentage of CEOs that make truly big bucks and you don't
hear about most because they do a good job. Why do companies offer huge
compensation for a top-notch CEO? If the job is done right, the right guy
can make the company perform wonders. Great job...if you can get it.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 17, 1:11 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Sep 16, 8:34 pm, "Noozer" wrote:
Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their
children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

Nope... Just cheap toys.

You are so full of it.

Tom, just sit back and watch the consumer change Mattel's bottom
line.

It'll be forgotten by Christmas. Sure they won't sell as much, but
they'll
still make money on the other few dozen items that they brought in
from
China, which have less noticable defects.

The CEO and all others responsible deserve what is going to happen
to
them.

Be given a multi-million dollar retirement package and spend the rest
of
their lives basking in the south of Spain?

You must not have kids...parents have long memories for people who
attempt to poison little Johnny.

Mattel is going to get creamed this Christmas.

The retailers who sell toys are breaking records trying to test
product before Christmas...they won't make the deadline.

Many parents I know have already decided to go toy lite this
Christmas...they can't trust the greedy Corporation that wants larger
profits at the expense of their children's health.

TMT

A smart CEO will turn this to Mattel's advantage...watch and see.
Besides,
if little Johnny WANTS the latest Mattel toy the parents will cave. Of
course, the parents will be doubly assured by Mattel that the toy is
extra-special-double-safe...sooo much safer than the competitor's
offering.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A "smart" CEO would never have allowed this situation to develop.

It is not rocket science that a company needs to inspect incoming
merchandise from a supplier.

The losses that Mattel suffers (and they have admited that they will
be significant) should come out of the CEO's compensation.

Then this problem will not happen again.


TMT


I'll buy that. But, it's how a screw-up is handled that shows one's mettle.

"Veronique" wrote in message
ps.com...

Besides, lead paint tastes good.


V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep


Lead paint chips were good enough for me as a kid and I turned out OK!!!

"Bob Ward" wrote in message
...

snip
So, in your world, the CEO gets all of the credit for success, but
none of the blame for failure? A-****ing-mazing!

Oh yea, that's EXACTLY what I said! (And I thought MY comprehension wasn't
great...I bow to the master of word twisting!) (Dude, you got issues!
Shiny side out on that foil helmet!)

It appears to be a mixed bag, but the general level of quality is somewhat
less than we expect in the west.

Given the total domination of Chinese products in almost all areas of the
market, I woudl say teh Chinese are making exactly the quality level that
we expect in the West...

"Geoff" wrote in message
...



It appears to be a mixed bag, but the general level of quality is
somewhat
less than we expect in the west.

Given the total domination of Chinese products in almost all areas of the
market, I woudl say teh Chinese are making exactly the quality level that
we expect in the West...

There's nothing like "total domination." China only provides 15.5% of US
imports. Mexico and Japan, together, make up 19%. Canada is 16.4%. And so
on.

On the whole, China's quality is somewhat less than that of our other top
trading partners.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Geoff" wrote in message
...



It appears to be a mixed bag, but the general level of quality is
somewhat
less than we expect in the west.

Given the total domination of Chinese products in almost all areas of the
market, I woudl say teh Chinese are making exactly the quality level that
we expect in the West...

There's nothing like "total domination." China only provides 15.5% of US
imports. Mexico and Japan, together, make up 19%. Canada is 16.4%. And so
on.

Is this based on dollar amounts, or per unit?

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:lMWHi.42$A55.8@pd7urf2no...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Geoff" wrote in message
...



It appears to be a mixed bag, but the general level of quality is
somewhat
less than we expect in the west.

Given the total domination of Chinese products in almost all areas of
the
market, I woudl say teh Chinese are making exactly the quality level
that
we expect in the West...

There's nothing like "total domination." China only provides 15.5% of US
imports. Mexico and Japan, together, make up 19%. Canada is 16.4%. And so
on.

Is this based on dollar amounts, or per unit?

Dollars. If you tried to do it in units, you'd have to ask, units of what?

--
Ed Huntress

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:24 am, George wrote:
clifto wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
The stockholders would get a larger dividend if the CEO got a smaller
salary.

Not if the smaller salary got a less skilled CEO.

Salary has little to do with quality once you are in the CEO isle. The
main thing that is needed is renumeration should be based on true long
term performance (that isn't derived from quickie fixes).

Quality has EVERYTHING to do with what the CEO should be paid.

Problem is the theorists who define quality as conformance to specifications.
Then everything the CEO specifies becomes "quality".

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Noozer" wrote in message
news:lMWHi.42$A55.8@pd7urf2no...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
....
...China only provides 15.5% of US imports. ...

Is this based on dollar amounts, or per unit?

Dollars. If you tried to do it in units, you'd have to ask, units of what?

But would be interesting in units of various products to see what
fraction of actual sales units of various commodity products are of
whose origin. Some things seem to be _only_ available as Chinese-made
these days...

--

Given the total domination of Chinese products in almost all areas of
the
market, I woudl say teh Chinese are making exactly the quality level
that
we expect in the West...

There's nothing like "total domination." China only provides 15.5% of US
imports. Mexico and Japan, together, make up 19%. Canada is 16.4%. And
so on.

Is this based on dollar amounts, or per unit?

Dollars. If you tried to do it in units, you'd have to ask, units of what?

Units of product.

Of course the Chinese will have a smaller percentage of the DOLLAR value of
imports... their cheap prices is what brings it in.

If 90% of all imports only accounts for 10% of the dollar value of imports
then dollar value isn't a very good measuring stick.

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:%AXHi.90$A55.83@pd7urf2no...
Given the total domination of Chinese products in almost all areas of
the
market, I woudl say teh Chinese are making exactly the quality level
that
we expect in the West...

There's nothing like "total domination." China only provides 15.5% of
US imports. Mexico and Japan, together, make up 19%. Canada is 16.4%.
And so on.

Is this based on dollar amounts, or per unit?

Dollars. If you tried to do it in units, you'd have to ask, units of
what?

Units of product.

Toy whistles, or diesel engines?


Of course the Chinese will have a smaller percentage of the DOLLAR value
of imports... their cheap prices is what brings it in.

Not so cheap that 15.5% of dollar value would represent "total domination"


If 90% of all imports only accounts for 10% of the dollar value of imports
then dollar value isn't a very good measuring stick.

True enough. Now, why don't you check a few representative products and see
how China's prices compare with others? What you'll find is that, in
comparable products, their price advantage is nowhere near enough to jump
from 15.5% to "total domination."

--
Ed Huntress

In article %AXHi.90$A55.83@pd7urf2no, "Noozer"
wrote:


Of course the Chinese will have a smaller percentage of the DOLLAR value of
imports... their cheap prices is what brings it in.
Tells you nothing. Then you equate a car imported from final assembly
in Canada the same as a 10 cent trinket from China.


If 90% of all imports only accounts for 10% of the dollar value of imports
then dollar value isn't a very good measuring stick.

Of course it is. You are looking at dollar value because that is
the measurement. You don't have a current accounts deficit of units, but
of dollars.

There's nothing like "total domination." China only provides 15.5% of
US imports. Mexico and Japan, together, make up 19%. Canada is 16.4%.
And so on.

Is this based on dollar amounts, or per unit?

Dollars. If you tried to do it in units, you'd have to ask, units of
what?

Units of product.

Toy whistles, or diesel engines?

Yes. : )

How many toy whistles manufactured in the US? How many imported from China?
How many from elsewhere?

Obviously you can't compare whistles to diesel engines... Pick a product and
compare that.

Of course the Chinese will have a smaller percentage of the DOLLAR value
of imports... their cheap prices is what brings it in.

Not so cheap that 15.5% of dollar value would represent "total domination"

It is if it's the highest percentange and the next highest percentage is
only 10%...

If 90% of all imports only accounts for 10% of the dollar value of
imports then dollar value isn't a very good measuring stick.

True enough. Now, why don't you check a few representative products and
see how China's prices compare with others? What you'll find is that, in
comparable products, their price advantage is nowhere near enough to jump
from 15.5% to "total domination."

Not really possible. Walk into consumer stores and try and find a USA made
television or microwave oven.

I'd call it domination when 90% of the stock in a store is made in China.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article %AXHi.90$A55.83@pd7urf2no, "Noozer"
wrote:


Of course the Chinese will have a smaller percentage of the DOLLAR value
of
imports... their cheap prices is what brings it in.
Tells you nothing. Then you equate a car imported from final assembly
in Canada the same as a 10 cent trinket from China.

No, you compare how many "trinkets" are made in Canada as compared to how
many are brought in from China. Ditto for the cars. How many a built
domestically and how many imported? (Of course, then you'd have to argue
origin of manufacture for the content of the vehicles.)


If 90% of all imports only accounts for 10% of the dollar value of
imports
then dollar value isn't a very good measuring stick.

Of course it is. You are looking at dollar value because that is
the measurement. You don't have a current accounts deficit of units, but
of dollars.

So, if one consumer purchases a single Canadian made shovel for $50 and ten
consumers purchase a Chinese made shovel for $5 the market is even? I think
not. 1 Canadian shovel does not equal 10 Chinese shovels.

In article 3eYHi.196022$fJ5.180033@pd7urf1no,
"Noozer" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article %AXHi.90$A55.83@pd7urf2no, "Noozer"
wrote:


Of course the Chinese will have a smaller percentage of the DOLLAR value
of
imports... their cheap prices is what brings it in.
Tells you nothing. Then you equate a car imported from final assembly
in Canada the same as a 10 cent trinket from China.

No, you compare how many "trinkets" are made in Canada as compared to how
many are brought in from China. Ditto for the cars. How many a built
domestically and how many imported? (Of course, then you'd have to argue
origin of manufacture for the content of the vehicles.)


What does that tell you that is interesting? It gives you snap shot
of a specific industry. Some will do well in China, others don't. Talk
about obvious.



If 90% of all imports only accounts for 10% of the dollar value of
imports
then dollar value isn't a very good measuring stick.

Of course it is. You are looking at dollar value because that is
the measurement. You don't have a current accounts deficit of units, but
of dollars.

So, if one consumer purchases a single Canadian made shovel for $50 and ten
consumers purchase a Chinese made shovel for $5 the market is even? I think
not. 1 Canadian shovel does not equal 10 Chinese shovels.

In the economy and especially in things like balance of payments,
exactly the same. Besides, this tells nothing about the quality or
anything else of interest about the shovels. Differences in steel, for
instance between the two.

On Sep 17, 10:47 am, willshak wrote:
on 9/16/2007 11:19 PM Jeff Wisnia said the following:

Has anyone seen an Indian (asian) phone book? How many are named Singh
(lion)?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote;

Q: Why do Sikh men have the last name Singh and all women, have the
last name Kaur?

A: Singh means a lion and Kaur means a princess. In Sikhism these
titles eliminate discrimination based on "family name" (which denotes
a specific caste) and reinforces that all Sikhs are sovereigns under
God.

This tradition started because through the last name one could
distinguish what (Hindu) caste you are from. Just by hearing the last
name they would say, "Oh, you are the lowest" or "Oh, you are the
middle" or "Oh, you are from high class". Thus the Guru eliminated the
last name from all the Sikhs so that no one could tell the caste and
achieved equality for all Sikhs. He gave Singh as a last name to all
the Sikh men and Kaur to all the Sikh women.

Women were not treated as equals before the time of the Gurus, and so
to ensure equality, a movement for women's liberation was started five
hundred years ago with the Sikh faith. The Guru said, "You are my
beloved princesses, my daughters. You must be respected. How can this
world be without you?" He admonished men for being rude and bad to
women. He said, "Without women this world cannot be. So give them
rights, give them equal respect.

" So the Sikh faith says that you must respect women. Previously, when
a woman would get married, she would take the last name of the family
she went to. Since Guru eliminated the name, he said, "You don't have
to take anybody else's name. You are an individual, you are a
princess, and you keep Kaur as your last name." It gave women a lot of
self-respect.

.................................................. .................................................. .....

In regard to equal rights for women sounds like a faith ahead of it's
time!

Rather like saying all Amuricans should take the name 'Yank' or
Canadians should take the name 'Beaver' (or Moose!) if/when they
become a confirmed Christian!
A recent fuss in Canada revolved around a misunderstanding that people
using Singh applying for immigration had to 'change' their names. This
was aggravated by a badly worded government letter. In fact applicants
are asked, to, as they do anyway when applying for a bank account,
credit card etc. to have or adopt a third name for better
identification purposes.

I live in a community where the first mayor was named Bill Manning.
There were also several other Bill (William) Mannings some with a
middle initial some without. So day to day the individuals had other
names, such as "Carry's (his mother) Bill" or "Bill Lower Sreet
Manning". etc.

So to all the John Smiths in the USA and Canada, watch out someone
doesn't steal your identity! :-)

So, if one consumer purchases a single Canadian made shovel for $50 and
ten
consumers purchase a Chinese made shovel for $5 the market is even? I
think
not. 1 Canadian shovel does not equal 10 Chinese shovels.

In the economy and especially in things like balance of payments,
exactly the same. Besides, this tells nothing about the quality or
anything else of interest about the shovels. Differences in steel, for
instance between the two.

My point is that eventually all that folks will buy is the $5 shovel and
then what happens to the company making $50 shovels?

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:2aYHi.196016$fJ5.64801@pd7urf1no...
There's nothing like "total domination." China only provides 15.5% of
US imports. Mexico and Japan, together, make up 19%. Canada is 16.4%.
And so on.

Is this based on dollar amounts, or per unit?

Dollars. If you tried to do it in units, you'd have to ask, units of
what?

Units of product.

Toy whistles, or diesel engines?

Yes. : )

How many toy whistles manufactured in the US? How many imported from
China? How many from elsewhere?

Obviously you can't compare whistles to diesel engines... Pick a product
and compare that.

Of course the Chinese will have a smaller percentage of the DOLLAR value
of imports... their cheap prices is what brings it in.

Not so cheap that 15.5% of dollar value would represent "total
domination"

It is if it's the highest percentange and the next highest percentage is
only 10%...

If 90% of all imports only accounts for 10% of the dollar value of
imports then dollar value isn't a very good measuring stick.

True enough. Now, why don't you check a few representative products and
see how China's prices compare with others? What you'll find is that, in
comparable products, their price advantage is nowhere near enough to jump
from 15.5% to "total domination."

Not really possible. Walk into consumer stores and try and find a USA made
television or microwave oven.

I'd call it domination when 90% of the stock in a store is made in China.

Then take automobile engines. Chevrolet imports lots of them from Shanghai.
Compare the costs with those made in Canada.

Or electric motors. As of a few years ago, the US sold more electric motors
to China than we bought from them.

Silverware. Eyeglasses. Leather shoes. Men's suits. Automobiles.
Motorcycles. Replacement windows. Insulation. Lumber. Aluminum. Detergents.
Electric drills. Outboard motors and boats. Trucks. Aircraft. House siding.
Meat. Vegetables. Fishing rods.

And so on, for an overwhelming list of products. China "dominates" in the
cheap end of consumer products. Their quality is ****-poor. They're a
natural marriage with Wal-Mart.

--
Ed Huntress

Sevenhundred Elves wrote:

_____.___________________________________._____
|_____|___________________________________|_____| -- Beam
|| 0-- Fastener 0 ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||--Support
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| |-- Chain | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | _________________________________ | ||
|| |/ \| ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | Backrest | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | _________________________________ | ||
|| |´ `| ||
|| | Seat | ||
|| |___________________________________| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
\\// -- Grass \\//

But I believe you were thinking about something like what I've shown
below. In this type of hammock the force on the fasteners easily exceeds
the weight of the seat with occupants, because of the geometry, just
like you say.

| | | |
| | Fastener Chain | |
|___| / v |___|
|____}------,-----------------------------------,------{____|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |--Support
| | |-- Chain | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | _________________________________ | | |
| | |/ \| | |
| | | | | |
| | | Backrest | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | _________________________________ | | |
| | |´ `| | |
| | | Seat | | |
| | |___________________________________| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
\\||// \\|||//

This should neatly reconcile your different opinions, I hope.

S.


Those are called a 'Porch Swing', hung from the roof of a front porch
to sit and read, or to wait for the house to cool off after a long, hot
day. It was also where young people sat during a date, before movies
and other distractions.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Neal Eckhardt wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:07:40 -0400, Lee Ayrton
wrote:


Groups list noted.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Uncle Monster wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

On the other hand, there are some Chinese plants that are producing
world-class injection-molded parts, which means they're making world-class
injection molds. Those plants I've read about were managed by western or
Hong Kong-based management.

It appears to be a mixed bag, but the general level of quality is somewhat
less than we expect in the west.

When I was a kid, "Made In Japan" meant "cheap junk".
An American professor developed the science of quality
control, American companies blew him off, the Japanese
listened. Give the Chinese time, they're learning.

The Version That I Heard held that Japan in the 1950s was filling an
available market niche: Cheaply made goods. It wasn't that Japan didn't
have the talent to engineer and build quality goods (witness their war
production, particularly their aircraft and optics). Rather, they were
making what the world would buy. Even while they were making trinklets
and easily broken junk, Nikon was getting favorable notices in the New
York Times.

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/port...te_history.htm

The version I heard was that all those cheap toys from the 50s were
manufactured for the Chinese market. Theywere never meant to be sent
to the US. Somebody bought them and started shipping them over here.


Then explain the crappy electronics they shipped here, well into the
'80s. It was designed and built for 120 VAC, 60 Hz.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

HeyBub wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Walmart is doing this for their good...not the good of the consumer.


Dunno about that.

According to a study done by Walmart, the company has provided more
assistance to lower-income Americans than all the welfare programs (Social
Security, Medicare, WIC, etc.) combined.


According to a study done by by Hitler he did more to relieve
overcrowding in Jewish communities than anyone else, in history.

According to a study done by grossly obese people, there is nothing
wrong with weighing over 400 pounds.

According to a study done by the French, there is nothing wrong with
the Metric system...


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Veronique" wrote in message
ps.com...

Besides, lead paint tastes good.


V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep


Lead paint chips were good enough for me as a kid and I turned out OK!!!


OK? Well, I wouldn't go THAT far!!! ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Hactar wrote:

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
George wrote:

RickH wrote:

China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in QA
departments.

Don't kid yourself. They are quite capable of making quality stuff. Its
the "Walmart mentality" buyers who keep on insisting on even cheaper
prices so then the quality falls as expected.

There was some ass on sci.electronics.design a while back trying to
sell his company's SMD crap and bragging, "It only has a 1% failure
rate".

Think about this: If a board has 100 parts that means on average, you
have a 100% average failure rate for an assembled board. If it has more
parts, the rate goes up, as well.

How can it possibly go up? A basic course in probability would serve
you well.

"1% failure rate" means each part has a 99% probability of NOT failing
(in some unspecified timespan, maybe on delivery).

Their spec was at delivery.

Put 100 of these
together and (assuming the failures are independent) the assemblage has
a 0.99^100 = 0.366 = 36.6% probability of not failing (in the same
timespan). That means a 63.3% chance of failure.


How many products have you see with less than 100 components? The
last design I worked on had over 5,000 SMD components.


You've never met Mr. Murphy have you? Motorola had well over 100%
failure rate at the end of the production line on their TV sets when
they sold their consumer electronics division to Matsu****a. The
components they were using were well over .1% failure rate, yet they had
multiple defects in most sets, and very few that worked in final test.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Neal Eckhardt wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:54:53 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:


Testing fuses is sort of like testing firecrackers isn't it? The good
ones are rendered unusable if they "pass". G


I heard a story a few years back about a company that went to 100%
testing of all components. The production department got a shipment of
fuses with the QC statements that they all blew at the proper
amperage.


That isn't how you test a fuse. There is QC, by monitoring the
temperature with an IR camera or thermometer. Some Defense contractors
were required to do 100% testing on components, because the product was
for mission critical use. Cincinnati Electronics had a couple people
who took reeled passives and ran them on automated test fixtures. If a
part was out of spec, it was automatically cut from the T&R. If the
percentage was too high, the whole reel went back to the vendor.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

According to a study done by by Hitler he did more to relieve
overcrowding in Jewish communities than anyone else, in history.

Cool we can invoke Godwin and kill off this idiocy


According to a study done by the French, there is nothing wrong with
the Metric system...
Nothing at all wrong with the metric system. Now the French.. that is
another thing altogether.